02 Nov 07
The post that was quoted here has been removed1. Catholics do believe that the wine turns into the Blood of Christ but only in a non-physical sense. They do accept that if any tests are done on the wine it will still appear to be wine, and the do accept that you can get drunk from drinking it.
2. As for the priests complaint, if he is drinking enough to be over the limit then he is a hazard to other road users and as such should be stopped from driving. Just because drinking is a requirement of your work does not give you an excuse to drink and drive. Next we will have bar-men, wine tasters, entertainers etc all claiming that drinking is part of their job so they should be allowed to drive drunk.
02 Nov 07
2 edits
The post that was quoted here has been removedBut you see they are using "Christian" language which means that almost half the words could mean something totally different from what you think it means. For example what do you think it means by 'substance'? And what does 'under the species of bread' mean?
And even 'Christs Blood' or 'Christs Body' can be taken with a more symbolic meaning than parts of the physical human being that possibly once lived.
Clearly no Catholic claims that the wine tastes like blood.
And who's to say that you cant get drunk on Christs Blood or even be fined for driving under its influence?
02 Nov 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadOr the blood of christ is alcoholic.
1. Catholics do believe that the wine turns into the Blood of Christ but only in a non-physical sense. They do accept that if any tests are done on the wine it will still appear to be wine, and the do accept that you can get drunk from drinking it.
2. As for the priests complaint, if he is drinking enough to be over the limit then he is a hazard to oth ...[text shortened]... rs etc all claiming that drinking is part of their job so they should be allowed to drive drunk.
I agree it 2)
Everyone follows the same rules. If the rules are unfair, speak up. The priest is doing so, he's in his right.
I'm against drunk driving, but a glass of wine is a bit far away from being a menace to the road. Lowering the allowed alcohol to such low values is more of a political measure then anything else.
02 Nov 07
Originally posted by serigadoI've heard that any wine NOT consumed during Communion service at a Mass MUST be consumed by the priest--something about it being wrong to pour the unused portion down a drain or something. Is this true? Perhaps this is why the priest was concerned; several masses consisting of one small drink is one thing, but if there's 1/2 a carafe left over at each gathering...
Or the blood of christ is alcoholic.
I agree it 2)
Everyone follows the same rules. If the rules are unfair, speak up. The priest is doing so, he's in his right.
I'm against drunk driving, but a glass of wine is a bit far away from being a menace to the road. Lowering the allowed alcohol to such low values is more of a political measure then anything else.
02 Nov 07
Originally posted by PinkFloyd😀
I've heard that any wine NOT consumed during Communion service at a Mass MUST be consumed by the priest--something about it being wrong to pour the unused portion down a drain or something. Is this true? Perhaps this is why the priest was concerned; several masses consisting of one small drink is one thing, but if there's 1/2 a carafe left over at each gathering...
I bet that law was made by priests.. ehhehe
02 Nov 07
4 edits
Originally posted by serigadoDuring the dark ages if the priest spilled the wine in the gutter (which was also the sewer back then), he had to lick it up. And there are recorded instances of some poor priests doing that.
😀
I bet that law was made by priests.. ehhehe
FYI, the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation definitively claims the wine and bread become literally blood and flesh - which is why there are several artifacts of the church claiming to contain real flesh that once was bread etc. Luther and Zwingli were bitterly divided over this doctrine during the Reformation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marburg_Colloquy).
So..., yes that Priest is acknowledging a contradiction in his own faith. If the Catholic doctrine is true, he should not be affected by what *was* wine. He should also probably never be anaemic 🙂
02 Nov 07
Originally posted by t0lkienI knew the Catholic church promoted alcohol to children, but I didn't realise that cannabilism was also one of it's teachings.
FYI, the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation definitively claims the wine and bread become literally blood and flesh - which is why there are several artifacts of the church claiming to contain real flesh that once was bread etc.
I'm glad I was strong enough to escape this cult.
D
02 Nov 07
you chaps are missing a trick here.
While it is acknowledged that the wine and bread are actually and really transformed into blood and flesh, they retain the physical properties of the wine and bread to all intents and purposes.
Thus the properties of the blood include alcohol and so will affect the priest if drunk, almost in the same way as real wine would.
